Probrooks

Welcome!

Hello, Probrooks, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

A word of caution

Hi Probrooks, I can see that you are somewhat new here and you apear to have made a number of small but valuable improvments to articles. Good work, and thank you for your help. I really wanted to urge you to take some time to become familiar with some of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Becoming familiar with these guidelines will make you a more productive editor. If you make edits that show some degree of unfamiliarity with these rules you might find yourself subject to greater scruitny within our community.

In particular please take a look at our Notability guidelines, which help us decide which topics are suitable for inclusion in wikipedia, Reliable Sources guidelines which help us select content suitable for sourcing, and specifically WP:MEDRS which should be carefully read if you intend to edit articles about products which make health or wellbeing claims. You might also want to read WP:FRINGE which suggests ways that we might cover topics that are on the fringes of science and culure. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

A second word of caution

Hi Probbrooks - I can see that you appear to be continuing a debate over at Talk:Bach_flower_remedies which maeans that you probably didn't yet follow my previous advice. Let me put this in somewhat starker terms: Many wikipedia editors will interpret your current behsvior as 'disruptive editing', in particular use of talk pages to promote a fringe POV or conduct advocacy is a practice that is generally frowned upon. I know that you feel that you are correcting other people's misunderstndings of a subject that you know well but people simply won't see it that way.

The advice I'd give you for now is to cool it. Think for ten minutes before crafting your next response. Instead of writing ten paragraphs, write one short paragraph that gets to the point more quiickly. Also learn how to use Wikipedia's threaded discussions (because you are messsing up the talk pages and that's another way to irritate people). ou

The consequence of not taking this advice will be to draw further attention to yourself. You might find that the next editors you interact with are less inclined to chat with you but instead seek to restrict your use of the site. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Salimfadhley Thanks for taking the time to give some advice and suggestions. I haven't been editing the Bach flower page too much, I'm just in the process of finding more sources and am working on editing it so it is much clearer and more accurate.

I think it is important NPOV standards are adhered too. Clearly, many editors are Skeptical in nature, and this is the opposite of advocacy, which should be frowned upon, it is denial of the validity of a practice in the first place and this is clearly inappropriate IF NPOV is to be adbided to.

As it stands, some editors have been stating they believe Bach Flower Remedies are "nonsense". That is of course, a personal belief. My personal belief is that such people do not know what they are talking about! :-)

I should point out, in my last comment, I added a reliable source about a relevant scientific study.

There is so much misunderstanding from other editors who appear to have almost no understanding of this subject a few words cannot be helped trying to educate them! At the present time this article does not present a truly NPOV. - Probrooks (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I dont want to be drawn into a duplication of the other argument here, but yes - you are commenting too much on that page. You are writing too verbosely and making the wrong kind of arguments. An example of the wrong arguments are saying that editors "lack understanding" of a subject (implying that you are a personal authority in a subject). That generally goes down very badly because Wikipedia is not an outlet for our personal opinions/research, but really an organised collection of secondary sources. Making that argument telegraphs to people that you have not yet fully understood the rules and policies of Wikipedia. Don't worry - it will come in time. Up until your involvement with the back flower remedies page your contribution has been positive and helpful. I suggest that for the next week or so you should stick to subjects that you have no personal involvement with and "learn the ropes" before you engage in another dispute. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I had a look at the Edzard link you posted - a short commentary in which an experienced medical researcher describes the research in question as "too good to be true" - an idiom which usually implies a great deal of skepticism and distrust on behalf of the author. In particular he points out that the journal is (in his opinion) low quality because of it's history of publishing questionable work, lack of verifiable data etc. On the basis of that opinion I'd say that's good enough reason that the Cuban study should not count as a WP:MEDRS.

I think the problem with homoeopathy in general (and this topic specifically) is the lack of good quality research which confirms the claims of proponents. There is plenty of good quality research which confirms the null-hypothesis (which is that these substances work by placebo). I think that's a fact that you admitted in your own (quite correct) commentary. When the overwhelming bulk of research covering a subject is highly skeptical then a neutral article will reflect that opinion.

A popular misconception of Wikipedia is that neutrality means giving equal weight to all possible views on a subject. That's really not what we do here - our purpose is to reflect the opinion of reliable secondary sources, consequently we must not give undue weight to fringe and minority sources.

Your claim that these products are "not medicine" is not going to pass muster here. The WP:MEDRS standard applies any time where a product is making a claim of wellness, no matter how vague that claim may be. I think it's pretty clear from the Rescue Remedy marketing that this isn't really a food product! --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Salimfadhley This pilot study in Cuba will have attracted some attention, and perhaps inspire more studies of this nature. It is worth pointing out that Bach Remedies and Flower Essences have been incorporated into the Health System there since 1999. I guess we are going to see a lot more studies like this come out of Cuba.

http://www.cubaheadlines.com/2007/10/30/6727/flower_therapy_an_approach_to_the_art_of_healing.html

Probrooks (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's entirely possible that at some point in the future some research will overturn the current consensus (which is that all Homeopathy, including Bach Flower remedies are no better than placebo). If the consensus shifts we can incorporate new sources and adjust our articles accordingly. Until that time we should reflect the current mainstream scientific consensus and avoid any kind of speculation.

CubanHeadlines appears to be a general news publisher, and not the sort of publisher which comes to the standard required by WP:MEDRS. This source might be suitable for showing that Bach remedies have a role in some international health systems but not as any kind of evidence of medical effectiveness. There are plenty of very large, higher quality studies which confirm the consensus that Homeopathy does not work. I'd urge you to refer to this section WP:MEDASSESS which outlines the kinds of study which Wikipedia considers to be more reliable for medical claims.

Did you get round to reading WP:FRINGE which is our guideline concerning fringe scientific topics. The relevant guidance is right at the top:

"Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight,[1] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner."

As ever, please let me know if any of the points I have made requires clarification. I will be delighted to oblige. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

SalimfadhleyOf course I'm aware of the view that homeopathy does not work, and spent some time studying the studies involved due to having extensive online arguments about this subject. I tend to think the studies that have been carried out on homeopathy are insufficient, and so disagree with you about these studies being high quality. I also think there is a political and ideological agendas at play here, especially in the UK. Obviously, this is my personal point of view on this subject. Even still, there are enough studies that clearly do show homeopathy to work, such as these vitro studies.

http://drnancymalik.hpathy.com/2012/08/18/in-vitro-evidence/

That being said, flower essences and Bach Remedies are very different to Homeopathic remedies, and normally homeopaths don't have much to do with them, and it is considered an entirely different field.

My main issue with the Bach flower remedy article as it stands, is that it is too far weighted against Bach Flower Remedies in language, syntax and clarity about Bach Remedies, and that it is quite a poor resource in informational terms in terms of its accuracy. Part of that I think is because most of the editors don't really know or understand what these remedies are or how they are supposed to work as they "believe" they are nonsense.

I am not "advocating a fringe topic", I just think we shouldn't prematurely close the case, and communicate with an open mind that doesn't attempt to prematurely close the case. The extreme popularity and uptake of Bach Flower Remedies in the wider global population, indicates a large consensus who believe they work, therefore I would argue that Bach remedies are not so much a fringe theory in many parts of the world, but can represent common practice and so this should be respected.

Hopefully, I can fix these issues with the article without too much hindrance! This conversation started with me communicating about what I felt were unreasonable reversals to a few of my minor edits made on an editors talk page, which was subsequently moved to the Bach remedy talk page.

Thanks for the links and information, I have been reading these pages more thoroughly. It certainly can be involved area editing wikipedia! - Probrooks (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood what is meant by "fringe topic". Fringe does not mean "unpopular". As you have quite correctly observed - homeopathy (and related practices) are indeed popular in some parts of the world. Fringe in the context of scientific and medical articles on Wikipedia refers to points of view which are unproven, considered substantially disproven and overwhelmingly rejected by *mainstream* science. Consequently we can have articles about fringe topics but we can never misrepresent fringe topics as if they were mainstream.

We are not "closing the case", in that Wikipedia articles always reflect the latest mainstream sources. As new reliable sources emerge we are free to incorporate those sources into the articles, however I suspect that your edits will be hindered if you carry on in a manner that suggest to editors you have not fully understood the policies which are relevant to medical articles.

Articles about medical claims tend to be some of the most strictly policed articles on Wikipedia because of the possibility of harm to our readers if we misrepresent quackery as mainstream medical advice. These kinds of articles really are bad subjects for beginners to edit!

The claim that "flower essences and Bach Remedies are very different to Homeopathic remedies" has not been verified by any medically reliable source. Both moralities purport to exploit ultra-dilute solutions which exhibit "vibrational" aspects of fluids that have not yet been shown to exist by mainstream science. Both make claims that conflict with well established science (e.g. the principle of dose response). This is why mainstream medicine considers Bach Flower Remedies to be practically indistinguishable from any other kind of homeopathy. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Salimfadhley The difference between Bach Flower Remedies and Homeopathic remedies, is that no physical matter is diluted in the first instance. This point should be made very clear. There is never any physical matter which is diluted. This gives LESS credibility to Bach Remedies, rather than more credibility in the eyes of most people! A Bach Remedy is made by placing flowers are placed into a bowl of water in the sun, and then diluting THAT water. It is considered ONLY to be a vibrational remedy. But this can be indeed a complex issue if you look into it thoroughly!

http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/articles/bach.htm

Therefore, we should try and simplify and clarify this language used on this page, rather than trying to make Bach Remedies look like homeopathy and make them look like homeo, at least recognise the most basic and clear differences in a clear manner. Overall, The main issue I have with this page is that Bach Flower Remedies should be communicated about in a clear manner, and that the methods and understandings of Bach should be communicated in a fair manner. In terms of the scientific studies which have been carried out, I think it is important to mention what studies have been carried out and for what conditions. It may be worth also be worth mentioning this Cuban study. You say it should not be counted as WP:MEDRS because Ernst has some doubts about the journal, but funnily enough, the Cuban study was published in a journal that Edzard Ernst started! His views about the journal therefore may not be the most objective view or reason enough to discount the study.

As I stated to you in the discussion, there is no discussion of Bach's understanding that different people are of a different character related to the Bach remedies, neither are ANY of the Bach Remedies explained in terms of what they are supposed to do. This should be rectified to communicate a large part of the picture as to what Bach Remedies actually ARE and the philosophy behind them. Afterall, wikipedia should communicate relevant information about a subject and not ONLY how science or how scientifically minded people view a particular subject.

It is well understood that many people see Bach Remedies as quackery, and that mainstream science cannot account for the effects that people experience above and beyond placebo. I think I see an opportunity to improve an article and learn about wikipedia more at the same time :-)

Probrooks (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That's not actually much of a difference. In a homoeopathic dilution not a single molecule of the original substance remains. In a bach flower remedy the molecule never existed in the first place - neither have been shown to work, and both have been shown not to work repeatedly. I wish you luck in your time here. however I fear that your current behavior is unlikely to win friends. My advice is to stay away from this topic until you have understood the policies. Best regards and good luck! --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

SalimfadhleyThat's actually incorrect, as in many homeopathic preparations molecules do remain, as it is a dilution. And what are considered the higher strength preparations are the one's which are diluted the most.

I personally think it is too premature to make judgements about homeopathy, especially when it is growth industry. My friend who is a homeopath says the reason that homeopathy is growing all over the world is that many people who go to homeopaths have tried many things, and then find homeopathy works. She also says a lot of homeopaths are not very good and go out of business.

Also, not all studies show that homeopathy "doesn't work".

http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/conditions-with-overall-positive-evidence-for-homeopathy/

And if you look at these studies, you can see there are actually not that many studies carried out on homeopathy.

I personally have very little experience with homeopathy, but do believe that "science says" homeopathy doesn't work is actually incorrect. There are a lot of minor studies too and also those in vitro studies which I think it would be foolish to completely ignore them and make a premature judgement.

Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, left the organization due to concerns about its integrity.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/03/wikipedia-founder-calls-alt-medicine-practitioners-lunatic-charlatans/

“Wikipedia's neutrality policy, at least as I originally articulated it, requires that CAM's practitioners be given an opportunity to explain their views. At the same time, the policy also requires that more space be given to mainstream views that are critical of CAM, precisely because such critical views are held by most medical health professionals...

I am as big a defender of rationality, science, and objective reality as you are likely to find. But I also think a public resource like Wikipedia should be fully committed to intellectual tolerance and the free exchange of ideas. That, together with an interest in providing a way to resolve disputes, is just what drove me to advocate for and articulate the Wikipedia's neutrality policy. I have confidence that if CAM's advocates are given an opportunity to air their views fully and sympathetically—not to say they should be allowed to make Wikipedia assert their views—and skeptics are also given free rein to report their explanation of why they think CAM is a load of crap, then a rational reader will be given the tools he or she needs to take a reasonable position about the matter."

The co-founder of wikipedia said this better than I could. Maybe I am pushing a barrow up a hill, but I'll give it a go and see if I can learn some things and hopefully improve an article. Probrooks (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinions, as are your homeopath friends, just please do not inject them here unless you can find appropriate sources. Unfortunately none of the sources you have provided meet the standard required for medical claims. It is a high standard and rather conservative, but necessary because lives are at stake.

Unfortunately Wikipedia will always be skeptical of the claims made by CAM proponents until it they are backed by high-quality research, this I'm afraid is a deeply held policy which neither you nor I have the authority to overturn. Proponents of fringe theories always seem to want an exception in the case of their own beliefs, but it's really something we try to apply consistently.

I think you would be much more at home in Larry Sanger's Citizendium which has a different definition of neutrality to Wikipedia. While Wikipedia strives to reflect the opinion of mainstream research and avoid giving undue weight to fringe views, Citizendium is more inclined to give equal weight to both sides of an argument, and provides a forum for self-described experts in a subject. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of Citizendium

You mentioned some sympathy for Larry Sanger's reasons for quitting Wikipedia to found the rival Citizendium. Actually many of your opinions seem to allign better with Citizendium than Wikipedia.

CZ's policies express somewhat different concepts of neutrality and notability. [1]. In particular, one aspect you might like is that CZ specifically solicits "expert opinion" rather than relying (as we do on WP) on reliable sources. This means that articles need not be constrained by what other publishers have previously seen fit to write about. Experts such as yourself have a broader remit to write what they know.

You may also like to read Wikipedia's reasons for not adopting the same policies: WP:CITIZENDIUM. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

ah, yes, Citizendium! If only more than a few people read it, it would be worth editing ;-) I'm happy editing wikipedia at the moment, part of the appeal is that wikipedia often comes up very high in google results.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, you're telling me that in CAM subjects, where the scientific studies have not shown conclusive effect, that such wikipedia pages should try and warn away people from such practices, using language which attempts to make the practice look like charlatanism, even misrepresenting the field from the point of view of ideological viewpoints, which disregard and condemn the practice as "nonsense"? Perhaps you can clarify this, as I have this idea the article should represent Bach's ideas and the practice of bach remedies in an accurate language.

I don't have a problem with editing on wikipedia, so far it is fun and interesting thing to do. I look forward to learning more about the psychology of how things work at wikipedia! ;-)

No, in CAM subjects we should avoid any kind of misrepresentation that the modality has been validated by mainstream science. This means we should avoid giving undue weight to low quality sources (e.g. small studies, in-vitro studies, and studies from notoriously unreliable CAM journals) when we have high-quality sources which have already shown that no variety of homoeopathy is effective. We can use CAM sources to demonstrate what CAM proponents say, however here too we must avoid giving undeue weight and dwelling on possibly fictional aspects of a modality.

For example, the overwhelming majority of studies show that Bach Flower remedies have no action beyond placebo. A small minority of lower-quality studies show possibly anomalous results which disagree. Our article should represent this imbalance - in other words, being neutral does not require us to give equal weight to the arguments of both sides. Being neutral means we reflect the opinion of mainstream science which is that these remedies are pure placebo.

Unfortunately a great deal of CAM is really is charlatanism, simply for the reason that it is based on magical thinking and unproven modalities. The question is whether CAM proponents intend to deceive - mostly I think they are victims of self-deception. Most CAM is based on mystical or religious concepts such as 'Vibrational Energies', which as you have previously observed are concepts known to esoteric religions but not ever detected by scientific methods. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you are incorrect about vibrational energy, many have detected it scientifically as I have communicated to you before. I will work on that article you mentioned and reference those studies in time. I find your certainty about CAM quite stunning in fact, this is something I generally hear from skeptics who have no experience at all with even 10% of CAM! I would suggest to you, that much of CAM is working with "prana" and "chi" which is commonly talked about in China and India and many other cultures. I believe it will take mainstream Western science some time to catch up and understand this energy, but I don't doubt it will. ("Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic!")

That a particular modality has not been proven by mainstream science, does not mean that it may not work for people. I think this viewpoint of yours, severely underestimates the ability of human beings to make common sense judgements about what works for them and what doesn't. That being said, not all CAM is that effective or well practiced either, but "self-deception" is quite a blanket statement that covers so many modalities, and I would consider that a very fringe and extreme point of view.

Probrooks (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we can very confidently say that the forms of putative energy variously refereed to as "Prana" and "Chi" are concepts from religious and esoteric philosophy and not at all concepts that have been recognized or measured by science. Nothing that you have linked to suggests any kind of mainstream acceptance of these ideas. There's no actual evidence that mainstream (which is what I think you mean when you say Western) science is on the verge of adopting these ideas. If you know differently, take it to Energy (esotericism).

Neither of us can predict the future, so I couldn't be as confident as you that science will ever "catch up". Such claims have been made for a very long time and have been consistently wrong. Wikipedia is not a forum for speculation. There are other CAM forums dedicated to such leaps of imagination.

You are correct to point out that there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that CAM may "work" in some cases. There are also a vastly greater number of cases in which they have been shown not to "work". There are also stories of people failing to obtain effective treatment because they used CAM instead of evidence-based medicine. This is why Wikipedia takes a very conservative view on any medical topic. In the case of Homoeopathy (and related modailties), since there is no reliable research that shows it is better than placebo at treating anything we must not make any claims of effectiveness.

I'm reminded of an old joke a doctor once told me: Q. What's the diference between Medicine and CAM? A. Evidence. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Scientism is actually not THAT common among human beings, a lot of people trust themselves and their own rationality and experience first and foremost. And a lot of people realise the limits of science, and scientific research in our current age and climate, whereas some people have a naive faith in science, which often fails to take into account monetary or political issues.

An interesting point, but actually irrelivant to this discussion. The "evidence" for CAM is almost always litle more than anecdote and personal opinion. Monetary or political issues have no relevance to whether a theraputic modality is shown to work.

Because for one thing who carries out scientific studies? Seeing as there is little money to be made in Bach remedies, who is really benefitting from positive studies? When I mean political issues, I mean could you imagine The Lancet beginning to publish positive studies on Bach Remedies? The studies carried out on Bach Remedies seem to be carried out by people who do not understand how they work and for what conditions.

Oh, look, here is another study I found!

http://chp.sagepub.com/content/12/1/3.abstract

The self appointed priests of scientism, think they get to choose which scientific research is reliable or not. For example, if the research shows that homeopathic clearly does work, then it is surely unreliable as homeopathy has already been deemed "nonsense". These systemised reviews are like McDonalds for the brain. It is important to look more closely at the actual science involved, actually read the books, rather than simply blindly believing what the priests communicate.

This is just your opinion. Systematic reviews such as those published by Cochrane are considered to be amongst the most reliable of medical sources. You should refer to WP:MEDRS which explains some of the problems when citing smaller and pre-clinical studies in medical articles.

Well, this is the thing, the cherry picking that goes on in systematic reviews makes or breaks them. If you look into it closely, you'll see that modern day science itself, is about as neutral as wikipedia :-)

“If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.” ― Nikola Tesla. Big paradigm shifts don't come easy and don't happen overnight! People in any given time who are doing leading edge research may be considered "fringe" in their time or are even blatently attacked by the "old guard". In this day and age, it is not the church who makes accusation of heresy, but mainstream western science. - Probrooks (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think that Nikola Tesla quote is relevant. He was an electrical engineer, so he was almost certainly refering to "frequencies" of the electromagnetic kind. This is a phenomena that is entirely unrelated to "Prana" or "Qi", or the vibrations of Energy Medicine.

Well many people would say these frequencies are essentially the same type of frequencies.

There is no evidence that Homeopaths are on the verge of a pardigm shift - if anything, it's pre-scentific ideas are cosidered even more absurd now than they were in the time of it's founder.

--Salimfadhley (talk) 05:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I actually agree with you to a degree about homeopathy, their ideas and ideaology and system is quite antiquated. And I see no signs of a fresh breath of air into homeopathy, or any paradigm shift as you say.

Probrooks (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

That Tesla Quote

Just curious, do you have a source for that Nikola Tesla quote you mentioned earlier? --Salimfadhley (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I had a look and with some astute googling found that the quote comes from an inventor called Ralph Bergstresser, who claims that Tesla said this to him in a meeting in 1942.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_universalenergy01.htm

Probrooks (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

September 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Isolation tank. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Alexbrn (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

How to edit

If you like please read User:Jytdog#NPOV_part_1:_secondary_sources; I think it will help you understand how to edit here. If you have any questions about that, you can ask me here, if you like. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, about this comment, you are not understanding WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus includes all the past consensus that has been formed by the community over the years. Consensus findings within the community that address fundamental issues (ones that are raised over and over) are what we call the "policies and guidelines" (PAG). PAG were not imposed from on high -- the community itself established them over the past 15 years. They form the foundation for everything that happens here. And yes PAG can change with time - slowly and with difficulty. Local consensus at an article (which cannot trump the global consensus expressed in PAG) can change with time too - as new sources emerge or different people come along who agree to apply PAG differently -- but all those local discussions must be grounded in PAG - in other words, in the deeper consensus of the community. Without that foundation, this place would be a wild west - a Mad Max world that is all about power and game-playing. That is not how it really is. How it really is, is that editors who are what we call clueful (please read that, it is very short) - are listened to in discussions, and the edits they make stick and are not reverted -- exactly because what they say and do complies with PAG. That is how this place works. Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog Thanks for taking the time to write this. A lot of the time there is dispute in any given field or a lot of uncertainty. Sometimes human beings can rush in to write or communicate in such a way that does not actually communicate that uncertainty or the actual state of affairs in an accurately worded and reasonable manner. Many times article LOOK unreasonable. For example this on the morgellons page. It just looks pathetic, there is no real information there in that one sentence!

Medical description

Morgellons is a form of delusional parasitosis in which individuals have some form of actual skin condition that they believe contains some kind of fibers.[1][8][9][10][11]

The wikipedia Morgellons article is also far more certain than the actual CDC study. I do not see that it is our job to try and make people's minds up for them, but actually reflect accepted knowledge (or lack of knowledge) about a subject. No, wikipedia should not be some kind of anarchy, but I do not think it should be a whole bunch of people who are trying to impose their already made up beliefs and ideas upon others and I can see that happening here at times. (that can be advocates or the opposite of advocates)

I just had a dispute with a neuroscientist who was telling me his view was the truth. I believed him. Then I did the research and it turned out that was just his point of view, that he was trying to tell me was the truth. It turns out there is a lot of discussion and different interpretations and ideas among neuroscientists regarding this issue. It also turns out not enough research has been done and we in fact know very little about many aspects of the brain, as our tools are not not yet sensitive enough to measure them and how they work. Communicating a lack of knowledge or what we do not know, in some cases can be very useful and informative, and obviously, may reflect the most accurate NPOV truth, despite all the disagreement and viewpoints on any given topic.

Probrooks (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I hear you, but the sentence is actually "Morgellons is a form of delusional parasitosis in which individuals have some form of actual skin condition that they believe contains some kind of fibers" -- all the information from the medical perspective is at the Wikilink, and there is a lot there. The way you know this is not opinion, is because there are five (!) references there that you can read to verify the content. If you read those sources, this is what they say, about the medical aspect.

I kind of think Mogellons should be merged to the delusional parasitosis article and become its "Society and culture" section; per policy that is what should happen. But my sense is people would go apeshit if we tried to do that. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Probrooks: I totally agree with you that the article is presenting a level of certainty that the CDC report does not convey. Also it supports the idea that Morgellons people are delusional by citing the Atlantic which does not by any means count as WP:MEDRS and it says there that "some people have linked Morgellons "to another illness viewed skeptically by most doctors, chronic Lyme disease"." sourced to the Atlantic, of all places, when in fact there is on going research by many scientists into a link with Bovine Digital Dermatitis and many peer reviewed high quality medical cites they could give for that. Not WP:MEDRS but neither is the Atlantic, if it deserves to be mentioned, as surely it does, it should be cited properly. I think the article is very biased.

I have been warned by @Jytdog: that they will take me to Arbitration Enforcement for a topic ban if I continue to talk about this on the talk page which is why I stopped talking there. I don't think they have a case, because the discretionary sanctions are for pseudo science and fringe science, and the recent work on Morgellons is neither. But I've experienced these sanction discussions before and the admins judging them are not familiar with details of topics at all, no way that they would check cites and they'd be easily convinced that it is fringe or pseudoscience. And I must not be banned again because of a project I want to publicize on wikipedia for comment to help banned editors. So I am out of this unless @Jytdog: withdraws the threat (their own words) which they have also explained on my talk page they take very seriously. So I just can't risk it. But you have all my moral support here! Robert Walker (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

For about the zillionth time to both of you, the article does not cite the CDC report to support any WP:Biomedical information. There are five review articles that are cited: PMID 24005827, PMID 22250620, PMID 19878403, PMID 19822895, and PMID 19681520. Jytdog (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Probrooks: - I've been told that if I continue on this talk page saying the things I've been saying I'll be taken to AE immediately. The complaint was that I am encouraging you to edit the talk page on my behalf. That was not my intent, I just meant to offer you moral support in something you are doing already. There is no sanction or ban of any sort against me in this topic area, of course, it's just that I don't want to be taken to AE, for the reasons given already, so the threat to do that is enough to stop me. @Jytdog: I can reply to that but of course only if you drop your threat to take me to AE if I continue to present my views in the discussion or do anything except listen to what you say. I need some place in wikipedia where I can reply without you taking me to AE to answer this. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 08:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting me, which is yet another WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior. What you need to do is comply with WP's policies and guidelines and stop WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion for changes that don't comply. Don't make the mistake of personalizing this - it is not about me, and it is not about "censorship". I said if you continue to bludgeon (including here) and continue to argue for changes that don't comply with the policies and guidelines (including here) -- which is exactly what you did that led to your current TBAN -- I will take you to AE. If you believe that what you are doing is fine and I am wrong, then keep on doing what you are doing. Knock yourself out. I believe that you will TBANed in a heartbeat if I bring the case but the admins there will decide what happens. Not me. I have warned you, tried to show you what you are doing wrong, have given you tons of WP:ROPE and in return you have abused me. The next time you do this or urge other people to do this anywhere in WP about Morgellons, I will bring you to AE; am done trying to help and warn you.

Again, if you actually engage with the MEDRS sources and advocate for changes that follow NPOV and are grounded in MEDRS sources, and yield if/when consensus goes against you, you will not be doing anything wrong. Pushing to use weak sources and arguing about sources not even used to support biomedical information is dead wrong. Bludgeoning is dead wrong. Jytdog (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

How have I misrepresented you? You just said it again. If you let me have one place on wikipedia where I can answer your question without you taking me to AE, then I can reply to you. I didn't call this censorship - that's your words. Just said what the situation is, that you said you will take me to AE if I continue to explain my views on why I think the suggestion complies with the guidelins. As I don't want that to happen that means I can't reply. Call that what you will. I have already presented my reply to what you have just said and I believe that what I suggest complies with all the guidelines you mentioned. It is of course up to others to come in on the debate after that. I don't think I have done anything wrong but I don't want to be taken to AE to have to prove it, having been in such situations before, it is very stressful and the admins are not specialist in the topic area and in any system of justice there is some risk of miscarriages of justice - why take that risk even if tiny, especially since it is particularly important for me right now not to get another TBan so I can publicize a project I care about in December? I explained that also above. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 11:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

TBH, you are both CRAZY! Please continue this discussion somewhere else, not on my talk page.

Jytdog keeps making threats, acts as an authoritarian, interprets guidelines as rules he must enforce.

Robert Walker rambles, repeats himself, backpeddles, says too much, doesn't communicate with conviction and clarity the meat of what he has to say.

I'm giving the Morgellons article some breathing space. I'm made my case about making this article better and so has Robert Walker but can't see any point trying to trying to improve it at this point when people are so worked up about it. Obviously, it is controversial and so I think the article should reflect that controversy and not try and bludgeon readers with only one point of view.

Probrooks (talk) 12:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about this. It's not that I lack conviction though, it's just that I'm scared to speak my mind here, because I don't want to be taken to AE, especially having been through several stressful previous events. But I should have just stopped. After all, I made my point on the talk page already as you say :). And we have also rather hijacked your talk page and sorry about that! Robert Walker (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Probrooks: I just realized that as a newbie editor, you won't understand the context to all this discussion, and as someone who is thinking of possibly trying to get the article "sorted out" in the future, it's good that yuou know the background.

The thing is that Jytdog warned me that there are discretionary sanctions in place for Medicine on pseudoscience. This is to prevent cranks from wasting the time of other editors. If the other editors say they are being bothered by a crank, the admins will act quickly to ban them from the talk page. You might think that they would do an investigation, read the cites and check for themselves that it is pseudoscience. But no, that's not how justice is done here, instead it is done as a community similar to the editing process. The admins will look at my edit history and see that I have contributed to the talk page several times in long conversations with other editors opposed to me. They will also ask the editors if what I'm talking about is pseudoscience. Obviously @Jytdog: will say it is, as will several other editors. I'd argue in the same discussion that it is genuine science. But you do get psuedoscience or dubious science that gets accepted in peer reviewed journals sometimes (e.g. Cold fusion, or Water memory), so it won't be enough to show that it is published in peer reviewed medical journals. And the admins won't read the articles. The yalso judge very swiftly - if the case seems a clear one to them, they will give their decisions in minutes. So if most of the editors on the talk page say it is pseudoscience, the admins will accept that as the community decision and ban me.

I've had experience of this in the past (not of discretionary sanctions but of community justice here) and know that it works that way and I don't have a lot of confidence in the community sourced justice system on wikipedia as a result. It's not the admins that are the problem in my view, it's the system as a whole, that it can lead occasionally to miscarriages of justice. And that's why I don't want to risk being taken to AE while at the same time being certain myself from reading all the papers carefully that it is genuine science. And that's why I can't answer @Jytdog:'s points in this discussion because to continue to do so after the clear warnings he has given would be enough reason for admins to ban me. That's also why he is so confident in his ability to ban me, which comes over to you as arrogance.

Hope this helps you understand the situation. If you ever get a warning of discretionary sanctions, or someone says they are planning to take you to arbitration on some other matter, don't ignore it. Though ordinary editors can spend years on wikipedia without ever encountering this, I did myself. Robert Walker (talk) 08:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Pobrooks. Robertinventor does not understand the situation. The community put standards in place about reliable sources ages ago. One of the key ones, is that we rely on secondary sources as much as we can - not primary sources. In health topics, this is especially important since there are zillions of primary sources (research papers) on pretty much anything you can imagine. Many of them are bad science and when other scientists try to repeat them, they can't. Many propose theories that don't work out.

So we rely on literature reviews to tell us what experts in the field understand is "accepted knowledge" in their field, along with key institutions like the NHS, NIH, etc.

What RobertInventor is doing, is hammering against this long-standing approach to sourcing health content. Putting himself, as a WP editor, above the reliable secondary sources in the field, to elevate some primary sources. Key sentence is "being certain myself from reading all the papers carefully that it is genuine science." No one cares what RobertInventor, or you, or me, think. Our opinions are not relevant here in WP and thank god for that, or this place would be a bigger nightmare than it is. And Robertinventor is WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion on top of that.

Both of these things - proposing sources against MEDRS - completely ignoring MEDRS - and bludgeoning. Both are obvious, and will be obvious to admins at AE. The "justice system" here works pretty well, actually. Robertinventor does not understand Wikipedia.

This happens sometimes with people who are somewhat accomplished out there - they just cannot see WP for what it is, when they come here. Jytdog (talk) 08:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I understand about secondary sources and we could have a discussion about that if you were to agree it is not reason to take me to AE to discuss it. But a disagreement about secondary sources would not be a reason to take me to AE. The reason you can threaten to take me to AE and have reasonable expectation that they would ban me is because you claim that what I'm talking about is psuedoscience. That's what I was trying to explain to @Probrooks:, so they could understand both why you seem very authoritarian and why also I seem very timid because I can't risk saying anything that would suggest I'm ignoring your warning. Even if I argue with you that it is not pseudoscience, that would be plenty reason for you to take me to AE. Robert Walker (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope, you do not understand why I will bring you to AE. You are really persisting in not listening. Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog:Well you posted the warning about pseudoscience on my talk page and then threatened to take me to AE warning about WP:MEDRS. So I assumed you meant you'd take me to AE about pseudoscience. Can you assure me that what I'm talking about does not fall under the discretionary sanctions for pseudoscience and fringe science?

And can I reply to you explaining why in my view your WP:MEDRS reviews are insufficient to support the stance taken in the article without you taking me to AE? I have cogent reasons for challenging them if you want to hear them and won't take me to AE just for presenting those reasons. I didn't reply because you threatened to take me to AE if I said anything to continue my side of the discussion. Robert Walker (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Robert Walker Please take this discussion elsewhere, as I have already asked. As I understand it, WP:MEDRS is just a guideline, maybe we can have a discussion about this on your talk page at some point when I have time. :::::: Probrooks (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I've copied it over to my talk page and replied here. Robert Walker (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Please don't mark your edits as minor when adding or removing content

n/t -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Note about your userpage essay

The mission of WP is to summarize accepted knowledge. This is described in WP:NOTEVERYTHING.

Wikipedia is also "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Can edit. Editing is privilege extended to everyone. But there are strings attached. In exchange for the privilege of editing, WP requires people to follow the policies and guidelines, which include the mission. This is part of the Terms of Use, which every editor agrees to, each time they save an edit. (The time you edit, read the text that is just above the "save" button).

However, a lot of people feel passionately about things, and they come here to write about whatever it is they are passionate about and they don't take that deal into consideration - they don't stop, slow down, and actually try to understand the policies and guidelines and how we operate here.

One kind of such editors, is people who feel passionately about some health thing. There are many, many people out there who strongly believe "X is so" and they come to Wikipedia and want to make Wikipedia says "X is so". This has happened ever since WP existed.

As a result, the community formed the WP:PSCI policy as part of NPOV, and then created the FRINGE guideline to help people understand and work with PSCI. The community did this.

The key thing I hope you understand is that WP probably would be a lot more neutral if there were not constant promotional pressure for "X is so". That is where the problems arise.

For instance what MEDRS sources say about Morgellons is that it is poorly understood but appears to be a form of delusional parasitosis. Morgellons advocates hate that and try to make WP say it is an actual thing. Neutral editors dig in and say "no it is a delusion" and we end up with content that sometimes is more certain than things really are. The neutral editors are way, way closer to expressing "accepted knowledge" than the Morgellons advocates are, so the community lets that be. Nobody is super happy about it, but it is much better than the other way around.

If you set yourself up on some kind of anti-skeptic campaign here in WP, the time you spend here is going to be very unhappy for you, and you are going to waste a lot of your own time, and other people's time as well.

On top of that, it is an upside down approach to Wikipedia - the result of failing to understand what Wikipedia is, and what it is not.

You will of course do as you choose. Happy to discuss if you like. Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not on an anti-skeptic campaign, I'm just saying Skeptics can have a hard time being neutral because they adhere to an ideology. I am happy to point out these logical inconsistencies, that doesn't make me unhappy, it makes me happy to try and bring some accountability here.

I feel about skepticism the way that people may feel about Buddhists, Christians, Atheists or any kind of religion, I don't agree with this religion, but people have the right to practice it, but also they should not impose it on everyone else as being "the truth". I see this happening here, many editors and many in the wider community see this. It is not news to anyone.

Wikipedia can be what we make it to be, I think a lot of articles are quite poor and need a lot of work. Therefore, given some time, I'm willing to try and improve some articles.

"For instance what MEDRS sources say about Morgellons is that it is poorly understood but appears to be a form of delusional parasitosis."

Yes, and funnily enough your wording here is more soft than the present wikipedia entry, which says morgellons IS a form of Delusional parasitosis.

"The neutral editors are way, way closer to expressing "accepted knowledge" than the Morgellons advocates are, so the community lets that be. Nobody is super happy about it, but it is much better than the other way around."

Well, this is the point, somewhere there is compromise and neutrality and that would make it less likely you have so much promotional tendencies when actually a fair hearing is given to many subjects, which is just not the case with many articles.

You say there are neutral editors on the Morgellons wikipedia page at present, I disagree, they all say openly, this is all a steaming pile of BS. My point is, how can we really know, lets not be certain about a subject into which very little research has been carried out and actually a lot of people are reporting feeling sick, if it really does turn out to be something, isn't that a gross form of disrespect to them, to say that here?

Probrooks (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

see this just before i wrote you and the version of the article here which was how i left it after i revised the whole thing.

your understanding of what is going on is incorrect, and your perspective is going to drive you over a cliff, the more you cling to it instead of correcting it. So be it. Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

lol, a perspective is a perspective, everyone has a different one, same as understanding what is going on, this is only something one can ascertain, you can't necessarily "correct" it. I can only learn more about what is going as I continue to edit.

This change you made to the Morgellons leading sentences was needed I think. A slight change in wording can really make a difference in an article, but also when a few words are changed it might change the whole sentence and paragraph. That's why a lot of articles don't read quite so well a lot of time it seems to me.

Probrooks (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

You bring strong views about health into WP. Your views have conflicted with MEDRS sources at Morgellons and Detox diets. The more you forget that in WIkipedia we follow reliable sources, the more frustrated you are going to get. You are driving over a cliff. you can take that seriously or not. I have no more to say here. Good luck to you. Jytdog (talk) 03:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

My views do not need to be the same as what MEDRS are! You enforce MEDRS as rules, when they are just guidelines to make good articles. Detox diets is a farce of an article, and I only wanted to express that and explain why I thought it was. I haven't even read the MEDRS sources for Morgellons to understand them. I understand the need for reliable sources. I'm happy to go over the cliff if need be, these veiled and not so veiled threats I find very tiresome. It may well be YOU who is driving over the cliff here! You can take that seriously or not! ;-)

Probrooks (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

March 2017

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Meridian (Chinese medicine). Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Ian.thomson (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, similar discretionary sanctions cover Pseudoscience, such as Parapsychology. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Formal notice:

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

You have been topic banned

Per the clear consensus in this ANI discussion, you have been indefinitely topic banned from alternative medicine, broadly construed. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what this entails. Failure to adhere to this ban may result in additional sanctions, not excluding an indefinite block. Details on how to appeal this topic ban can be found here: Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Appeals_of_bans_imposed_by_the_community. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Using the words "herbal alchemy" in the article "Changa"

Hello there, you recently reverted an edit I made on the page "Changa". The original line is "Changa has been rapidly growing in popularity due to its ease of smoking, unique herbal alchemy, and longer duration (approximately 10-20 minutes) compared to smoking freebase DMT crystal." I modified it to say "unique chemical properties" instead of "herbal alchemy", as "alchemy" is not a word with a proper pharmaceutical or scientific definition. Here is the definition of "alchemy", as per Merriam-Webster: 1 : a medieval chemical science and speculative philosophy aiming to achieve the transmutation of the base metals into gold, the discovery of a universal cure for disease, and the discovery of a means of indefinitely prolonging life 2 : a power or process that changes or transforms something in a mysterious or impressive way … the practitioners of financial alchemy that transformed the world of money in the 1980's … —Gordon Williams 3 : an inexplicable or mysterious transmuting None of these definitions can accurately be ascribed to changa as there is nothing mysterious about its effects. It is either understood or not, and it may very well be the case that changa's chemical properties are still poorly understood, but the use of the word "alchemy" in a pharmaceutical or scientific context suggests mysticism, which is to be avoided. werewolf (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that in a strict dictionary sense, alchemy is not the right word here. Unique Herbal properties would work, but unique chemical properties doesn't really explain anything I don't think. There may be other ways to say the same sort of thing.

Probrooks (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Bulk delete of import safety section

Hey Probrooks, you have bulk deleted a 5,000+ section of a carefully constructed contribution concerning MAOIs in Changa. None of the referenced information was of interest to you? I'm happy to work with you to improve citation, where possible. Because it is a drug, much of the information comes from sites that cannot always be referenced but the information is widely accepted as correct - but if not, please discuss with me. For safety, maintaining sections on the dangers of MAOIs is important, as is building the overall understanding of the substance. It would be great if anyone else can help with building these sections too, and additional citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc Shaman (talk • contribs) 22:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

This long section was far too long and drowned out the meat of the article. If you want to provide some safety information you can do so backed up by some reputable sites and keep it succinct. Probrooks (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)